10. 3 The action programme


Judicial control

When the modern drug problem emerged in the 1960s, the judicial
system became involved in the definition process for several reasons.
First, the foundation of the legal control system on drugs had been
developed since the beginning of the twentieth century. Secondly, the
illegal status of drugs meant that justice had most experience with drug
users. This was especially true for cannabis users who were rare in the
assistance system. Thirdly, the legal control system is a monopoly of
the state and relatively easy to control by the central government.
The Dutch tradition of not prosecuting drug users for use or
possession for personal use was abandoned in the 1950s and 1960s and
was replaced with a penal approach to marijuana and hash smokers.
The Dutch authorities turned to American experiences and practice.
During the 1970s, the prosecution policy returned to non-prosecution of
drug users as long as they did not cause harm to society. This was
especially the case with users of cannabis. For users of drugs with an
unacceptable risk, the approach was different. Penal law could be used
as a temporary solution to get addicts into treatment until treatment
facilities and methods had been developed and the role of justice in this
respect could be played down. When it became clear that assistance
couldn't live up to this expectation, the focus gradually shifted to
normalisation and integration of (ex) addicts. Problematic addiction had
become a problem when it caused a nuisance to the public. Priority was
given to the pursuit of trade in drugs with an unacceptable risk. This
was not, however, primarily to solve the drug problem, but because of
its connection to organised crime.
In Sweden, justice and police became increasingly involved in drug
matters at the end of the 1950s when amphetamine users started to
break into pharmacies and later smuggled the illegal substances from
countries where they could be purchased over the counter. Soon, special
drug prosecutors were appointed. The newly established National
Police Board co-ordinated police activities in drug cases at the national
level. In 1968, the Prosecutor-General proclaimed the first guidelines
for prosecution of drug offences. During the 1960s and 1970s, cannabis
abusers were treated differently in law practice compared to other drug
abusers. At the end of the 1970s, the Prosecutor-General proclaimed a
sharpening of the guidelines on possession for personal use. The
prosecution practice changed from measures targeting supply to include
measures against street-level dealing to reduce demand.
If we compare the control strategies by penal law, we can conclude
that in the Netherlands prosecution of drug users for drug use and
possession of (soft) drugs for personal use was abandoned. In Sweden,
on the contrary, the prosecution of abusers became an important
measure to prevent dissemination of drug use and disturbing the market.
These developments are in line with the normalisation perspective in
the Netherlands and the drug-free society slogan in Sweden.
Another difference is the practice of Prosecutor-General's guidelines
for dismissal of prosecution. In Sweden, they were employed to each
individual case while in the Netherlands they became part of a general
policy to avoid prosecution of a category of offenders, i.e. possession of
cannabis up to a certain limit. This famous Dutch gedoogbeleid enables
police and prosecutor not to indict acts that are prohibited by law.
However, guidelines in both countries were up the end of the 1970s
quite similar in the sense that they allowed dismissal of prosecution for
possession of drugs for personal use in generous amounts.

Assistance

A frequently discussed issue was whether facilities specialising in drug
users had to be established or if they should be integrated with general
assistance services. Whatever the opinions, specialised assistance to
drug users was soon established in both countries and abstinence was
set as the goal for treatment.
In the Netherlands, a mosaic of assistance facilities emerged.
Probably due to the traditional infrastructure of non-governmental
assistance agencies, new facilities could emerge more easily than in
Sweden. However, problems in co-ordination emerged due to
ideological controversies about the causes of drug abuse, treatment
methods, and the most suitable professions. The dividing line went
between the medical approach and the alternative social-oriented
approach. The separate approaches were eventually institutionalised
with a distinction between treatment and care. The latter aimed at
abstinence for users who were motivated to stop using drugs. Treatment
was aimed at abstinence for users who were motivated to stop using
drugs. Care aimed at drug users that were not motivated or able to end
addiction and for whom integrated use was the highest possible goal.
Methadone became an important instrument to induce addicts to enter
the care system. The Dutch assistance system can be characterised as
both centralised (financing, regulating) and decentralised
(implementation).
A chain of care was planned for in Sweden. The role of psychiatry
had been reduced to detoxification, short-term rehabilitation, and
compulsory care. The national methadone programme, executed by
psychiatry, was never a link of the chain of care, but rather seen as the
last station for heroin addicts that had failed to become drug free. It was
very controversial and at the end of the 1970s, it was almost put to a
stop.
Local social service agencies would develop outreach work, and
municipalities and counties were to establish treatment institutions.
However, the slow pace of expanding the capacity of treatment homes
was a major concern to politicians. Within the chain, controversies
emerged about the right treatment methods. Those who advocated
psychotherapeutic methods (RFHL) rejected methadone-assisted
treatment. Hassela communities advocating re-fostering and hard
labour, despised psychotherapy and other therapeutic methods as well
as the methadone programme. However, despite the controversies, these
methods had one goal in common. Total abstinence was the only way to
a decent life. No distinction between care aimed at harm reduction and
treatment aimed at abstinence was possible from this point of view.
Contrary to the case of the control system, the implementation of the
assistance system was obviously was much harder to govern for the
governments. It was a matter for the counties, the big cities, NGOs, and
the only steering instrument was by state subsidies.104


Prevention

In both countries, negative social conditions were considered important
breeding grounds for the emergence of drug use and abuse. However,
such general conditions were hard to change in order to generate a
positive effect on the drug problem, at least in the short run, and an
immediate effect on the drug situation was not regarded as realistic.
This was particularly true for risk groups that were categorised as
members of society that through personal and social negative
circumstances already were in a socially vulnerable position. Apart
from these similarities, a comparison of the practices to inform citizens
about drugs shows substantially different strategies that can be
explained by both institutional factors and different definitions.


Sweden

In Sweden, the exclusion of deviant opinions from public discussion
was essential from the very beginning of the definition of the modern
drug problem. Those who questioned the harm of cannabis were seen as
part of the problem and were to be opposed. This goal was achieved by
different means. First, the "false prophets" were excluded from the new,
powerful medium, television. Secondly, basic facts on drugs were
provided and disseminated by state authorities. Furthermore, journalists
were further trained in drug issues to make sure they distributed the
right facts. All good forces had to join the struggle against drugs and
the government was to set out the right course. Information to the
public was focused on the detrimental effects of drugs and the causes of
drug abuse. In this way, the population could be vaccinated against drug
use.

Another aim was to secure the support of the population for the
action programmes that had been proclaimed by the government.
Furthermore, the struggle against drugs was not only a matter for
authorities. As the Narcotics Commission had emphasised, the main
front goes in the immediate environment of the people. The
commitment of all the Swedish people was needed, "One people, one
combat".


The Netherlands

In the Netherlands, information on drugs was a hot item as well.
Especially the radio programme "Beursberichten" (stock market news)
broadcast by the socialist station VARA was like a red rag to many
conservative MPs. This (in)famous programme, on the air from 1969
until 1980, reported the market prices of different brands of cannabis.
The government rejected demands to interfere because dissenting and
contradictory opinions were part of democracy. Further, it was argued
that the state should abstain from taking a stand in the public discussion
for several reasons. First, there was no scientific proof on the harm of
cannabis and any standpoint would therefore be arbitrary. Secondly, by
taking a stand the government would enter in the generation conflict,
this could be counterproductive and stimulate drug use instead.
Information about drugs was left to non-governmental organisations,
information to students in primary and secondary schools should be
discussed together with other health issues. Information to risk groups
was to be a matter for assistance agencies. The content of information
should be non-moralistic, elucidate both positive and negative effects of
drugs, and enable people to make their own decision based on objective
facts.
What factors can explain these different practices in the field of
information?


Sweden

The strong involvement of the Swedish state in information issues can
be explained by the way the problem was defined, namely in terms of a
crisis, a calamity that had hit the country. It was depicted as a threat to
the nation and especially the young people were at risk. Something had
to be done. When the prevalence and incidence rates of drug abuse were
decreasing from the beginning of the 1970s, new menacing images
emerged. The threat of a price war due to large world production was
followed by a new wave of cannabis. When the expected heroin wave
did not come, cocaine was expected to flow across the nation. Liberal
views on drug use and drug policy, however, have been depicted as
some kind of baseline threat from the very beginning of the first
problem definition.
Another explanation is the fact that Sweden had a long tradition of
state interference in the private sphere of the citizens for their own
benefit. Consequently, the Swedish population was accustomed to
messages and signals provided by the state. Furthermore, a campaign
apparatus was in place that previously had been used in massive
campaigns, for example, when Sweden switched from left-to right-hand
traffic in September 1967. The public radio and television service was
assigned the responsibility for adult education and cultural fostering
(Ahrne, Roman, Franzén 1996: 184). In the campaigns, television
played a crucial role. The Swedish broadcasting system is financed by
the state and paid by licence fees, but formally independently
responsible for programme content and policy. The Swedish Television
Company (SVT) is a limited company, of which the board is appointed
by the government. The SVT had a monopoly on television
broadcasting until 1987 when the commercial station TV3 started to
broadcast.
Opinion moulding had become a crucial part of the drug (and
alcohol) policy. Nationwide campaigns, directed at the public and in
particular youth and their parents, were implemented. Radio and
television, advertisements in newspapers, posters on advertising
columns, distributed anti-drug messages, and even on milk cartons
parents could learn how to recognise symptoms of cannabis smoking.
Apart from state authorities, other channels to distribute the message
and to create an anti drug-culture were the popular movements. The
distributors of information were free to decide how to mediate
information as long as it was grounded on the basic facts and had the
same message and goal: a drug-free society.


The Netherlands

Drug use in the Netherlands was perceived as a serious matter but
hardly as a national crisis. There was no tradition of state interference in
the private sphere as long as the public was not harmed. On the
contrary, the state had to respect the subsidiarity principle of the
Catholic pillar and the Protestant ideal of sovereignty in their own
circles. Social control executed by the pillars, setting and supervising
moral standards, had been stunningly effective up to the 1960s.
Therefore, when MPs in the 1970s and 1980s questioned the
government for acting as a censor morum, this was a legitimate
question. The government's categorical denials indicate that this was a
sensitive matter.
In the Netherlands, discussions about state-provided information
resulted in establishing a focal point at the Ministry of Health where
information was available. Why did the Dutch government not regulate
information? One explanation is simply that it couldn't. Because of the
pillar system in the Netherlands, every pillar had its own broadcasting
association for radio and television. Public service was just one among
several stations. It would have been impossible for the Dutch
government to interfere in the business of broadcasting in the same way
as the Swedish government did in 1969. It couldn't bar false prophets
from television and provide appropriate experts with the opportunity to
educate the people.
Besides, the Dutch government regarded the divergence of opinions
as inevitable in a democracy. Another reason not to initiate massive
campaigns was that general information could stimulate youngsters'
curiosity about drugs. Instead, information to young people should be
part of school curriculum. However, also in this field the possibilities of
the central state to interfere were limited, due to pillarisation. In the
Netherlands, 70% of primary schools were non-governmental in 1975
(SCP 1998: 566). At the end of the 1970s less than 1% of primary
schools in Sweden were non-governmental (Lundström, Wijkström
1997: 85).
Selective information had to be directed at risk groups and provided
by persons that encountered these groups, i.e. assistance agencies and
youth workers. In this field, the effect of depillarisation is obvious as
well. Social control, previously executed so totally by the pillars, had
lost its strength. To bring in these organisations was no option for the
Dutch government.
In summary, a major issue at the beginning of the formation of the
drug policy was who should take care of information. There was no
discrepancy in the view that the media and especially television played
a profound role. The choice of actors to provide information on drugs
and influence the content of the message was clearly different in the
two countries. In Sweden, information was initiated by state campaigns
while in the Netherlands the role of the state was played down. Despite
the differences, prevention and information can be seen as practices of
formal social control in both countries

104 When the process of decentralisation accelerated in the 1980s, this instrument
disappeared eventually too.

next